Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7115 Staff AnalysisJanuary 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7115 Todd and Lisa Cooper 3911 Foxcroft Road Lot 6, Foxboro Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a new single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3911 Foxcroft Road is undeveloped and wooded. The property slopes downward from south to north and west to east. There is approximately 45 feet of slope from south to north and 30 feet from west to east. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property. The proposed residential structure conforms to all of the minimum building setbacks for R-2 zoning, with exception of the proposed rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot rear setback along the west property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant notes that due to the severe January 28, 2002 Item No.: A slope of the lot, moving the proposed structure down the hill to the north would make construction much more difficult and costly, and in addition, the structure would still not conform to the minimum rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that this is an unusual dagger -shaped lot with extreme slope, it would be difficult to construct a single family residence of any size, and maintain the minimum required front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a rear yard relationship with the existing houses to the west. It appears that these adjacent structures are set back 25 feet or more from their respective rear property lines. Staff feels that the separation between these structures and the proposed residence will be adequate, and that the proposed house will have no adverse impact on these adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) The applicant, Todd Cooper, was present. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had informed staff that he wished to revise the application, in an attempt to satisfy the concerned parties. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board had some concerns with revising the application on such short notice, not knowing the impact of the proposed revision on the adjacent properties. Todd Cooper addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that he wished to amend the application by moving the proposed house 10 feet closer to the street, providing a minimum 20 foot rear yard setback, and encroaching over the front platted building line. He noted that the house could also be shifted to the north, which would lessen the encroachment over the front platted 2 January 28, 2002 Item No.: A building line to approximately five (5) feet. He noted that there was very limited buildable area on the lot. Chairman Ruck asked how far north the proposed building could be moved. Mr. Cooper regarded that it could be moved approximately 20 feet to the north. Andrew Francis asked Mr. Cooper if he posted the public hearing sign on the property, and if so when. Mr. Cooper stated that the sign was posted on the property the day before the deadline to do so. Fred Gray asked if the proposed house could be moved even further north on the lot. Mr. Cooper explained that moving it too far to the north would cause increased building costs. Chairman Ruck discussed the proposed amendment to the application. There was a general discussion relating to the location of the concerned parties' properties and additional discussion pertaining to the amended application. Don Ryan addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that he represented the Rogers and the Schultzes, property owners to the west. He requested that the application be deferred based on the fact that Mrs. Rogers was out of town and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Ryan stated that he did not believe Mr. Cooper owned the property. He noted that the proposed house would tower over the properties to the west. He noted that the owners of the lots to the west abided by the required 25 foot rear setback and explained. There was a general discussion pertaining to who owned the property. Mr. Cooper noted that he owned the property and bought it from a Mr. Strauss. Marilyn Schultz addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She expressed concern with the proposed placement of the house. She stated that she wanted Mr. Cooper to provide a 25 foot rear setback. She presented the Board with letters of opposition from her and her two (2) sons. 3 January 28, 2002 Item No.: A The Board took time to read and review the letters presented by Mrs. Schultz. Andrew Francis asked if the required 25 foot rear setback was measured from the easement line or the property line. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that the required setback is measured from the property line. Fred Gray noted that it appeared that the applicant could move the proposed house far enough north, and meet all of the required setbacks. He noted that moving the house further north would take it closer to Mrs. Rogers' house. He stated that he was interested to see if the house could be placed on the lot without a variance. Andrew Francis requested that the lot elevations, as presented on a sketch by the opposed parties, be made part of the public record. He also asked about building height. Staff explained that the height of the proposed building is measured from the lowest finished floor. Chairman Ruck stated that he thought a deferral of this application would be in order. Mr. Cooper questioned the reason for deferral. Chairman Ruck noted that a deferral would be appropriate based on the complexity of the issue and in light of the opposition. Andrew Francis stated that the property owners to the east should be properly notified of the front yard setback variance associated with the revised application. There was additional discussion related to the possibility of moving the house further north and meeting all of the required setbacks. Fred Gray asked Mr. Cooper about his time frame for construction. Mr. Cooper noted that there was no specific time frame, but he wished to begin construction of the house as soon as possible. Gary Langlais asked how far the two (2) houses to the west were set back from the rear property lines. Mr. Ryan noted that the Rogers' house was approximately 25 feet from the rear line (to the patio) and that the Shultz house was approximately 35 feet from the rear property line. Mr. 4 January 28, 2002 Item No.: A Cooper noted that Mrs. Rogers' patio and pool were very close to the rear property line. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Cooper if he wished to have a vote on the application or if he would accept a deferral. Mr. Cooper responded that he would leave it to the Board's discretion. Mr. Ryan stated that he was not sure what the revised application involved. There was a motion to defer the application to the January 28, 2002 agenda. There was discussion of the motion. Cindy Dawson noted that Mr. Cooper needed to renotify the property owners within 200 feet. Staff noted that a letter explaining the revised application and a revised site plan needed to be submitted by Mr. Cooper. The Board noted that the letter and site plan must be submitted to staff no later than January 10, 2002.1 The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the January 28, 2002 agenda. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on January 9, 2002 revising the original application. The applicant also submitted a revised site plan. The revised plan moves the proposed single family structure 21 feet down the hill and closer to the north property line. The proposed residence has also been shifted toward the front property line. The revised placement of the structure conforms with the 25 foot minimum rear yard setback. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow the proposed structure to extend a maximum of 10 feet over the front platted building line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the revised application. The revised plan provides for the minimum required 25 foot rear yard setback, which should alleviate the concern of the property owners to the west. Staff does not believe that the proposed building encroachment over the front platted building line will have an adverse impact on the adjacent 5 January 28, 2002 Item No.: A properties or the general area. The entire width of the proposed single family residence will not encroach over the front platted building line, which will lessen the visual impact of the structure to the residences across Foxcroft Road to the east. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front building line variance subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 6